Thinkpads Forum

richarddd wrote:Is the 7k100 noticeably faster than the 5k120? Will both be faster than my current 7k60?

The higher density of a 120gb drive should make up for at least some of the rotational speed advantage of the 100gb.

the 5k120 is NOT as fast as the 7k60. The increased aerial density does not make up for the difference in rotational speed. It doesn't even come close.

And the 7k100 is king. Nothing touches it. Not even the 7200RPM Seagates.

brentpresley wrote: And the 7k100 is king. Nothing touches it. Not even the 7200RPM Seagates.

Indeed. My 100GB 7K100 is the king of the road. I use also a E7K100 as a backup drive. Both work flawlessly

Seek times are similar for the 7k100 and the 5k100. The 7200 has a higher transfer rate. Presumably the 5k120 is faster than the 5k100.
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2 ... ook_3.html

The 7k100 is clearly the fastest. My question is how close is the 5k120.

richarddd wrote:Seek times are similar for the 7k100 and the 5k100. The 7200 has a higher transfer rate. Presumably the 5k120 is faster than the 5k100.
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2 ... ook_3.html

The 7k100 is clearly the fastest. My question is how close is the 5k120.

Listen, I'm cranky tonight, so don't take this personally, but I've already answered this.

The DTR (data transfer rate) on the 5K120 is nowhere close to the 7k100, or even the older 7k60.

I agree with Brent -- 7K100 is the way to go if you want performance. Period.

If performance is not critical and you think you need more than 100 GB, get the 5K160. It won't be as fast, but you'll have room for lots of multimedia content.

But you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Edit: Meant 5K160, not the (non-existent) 7K160.

tomh009 wrote:7K160

you mean 5k160?


Just wait till early next year. The 7k200 will be coming out.

http://tinyurl.com/yhp4ej

200GB of 7200RPM perpendicular recording goodness.

NOTHING will come close to that beast except a solid state drive made of HIGH SPEED flash RAM.

brentpresley wrote:

tomh009 wrote:7K160

you mean 5k160?

Indeed. I better fix my post ...

I'm hoping that the 7K200 will also include the hybrid drive technology (ie a 1 GB flash memory cache). But we'll see how Hitachi rolls out that technology.

brentpresley wrote:The DTR (data transfer rate) on the 5K120 is nowhere close to the 7k100, or even the older 7k60.

Media transfer rate (Mbits/sec):
7k100: 629
5k120: 540
7k60: 518

7k100 is the clear winner, but the 5k120 is a bit faster than my existing 7k60.

richarddd wrote:

brentpresley wrote:The DTR (data transfer rate) on the 5K120 is nowhere close to the 7k100, or even the older 7k60.

Media transfer rate (Mbits/sec):
7k100: 629
5k120: 540
7k60: 518

7k100 is the clear winner, but the 5k120 is a bit faster than my existing 7k60.

That is OUTER edge only. 7k60 smokes 5k120 across the entire disk but the edge. Manufacturers always report outer edge transfer speed instead of average speed just to make their numbers look better.

Listen, I've USED about all of these drives. Heck, I see/install more drives in a week than most people here will see in a lifetime. If you don't want to believe me, fine.


EDIT: care to share WHERE you got your numbers?

Hitachi claims a 510Mbit/s outer edge rate for the 5k120:
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/5 ... 120_ov.htm

And 518 for the 7k60:
http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/7k60/7k60.htm


So outer edge on the 7k60 is STILL faster. And transfer rates fall a lot quicker when you move inward on a 5400RPM drive than a 7200RPM drive.

wow.... what a difference.... i just upgraded my 5400 to a 7200 (100GB Hitachi).... and....

IT IS FRICKEN LOUD!!!!!!

worse... is that the difference in speed is minimal if any at all!

i could not have spent my money any more foolishly!

stay away from this upgrade... it is not worth your cash!

abendx wrote:wow.... what a difference.... i just upgraded my 5400 to a 7200 (100GB Hitachi).... and....

IT IS FRICKEN LOUD!!!!!!

worse... is that the difference in speed is minimal if any at all!

i could not have spent my money any more foolishly!

stay away from this upgrade... it is not worth your cash!

Stay away from this USER.

He's not worth the brain cells.

brentpresley wrote:Listen, I've USED about all of these drives. Heck, I see/install more drives in a week than most people here will see in a lifetime. If you don't want to believe me, fine.

Trust but verify.

brentpresley wrote:care to share WHERE you got your numbers?

I got those numbers from www.zipzoomfly.com, but made sure they were consistent with other numbers. They are close to the numbers you post.

Would the following be accurate?: the 5k120 is a bit slower than the 7k60, but the speed difference would be hard to notice in day to day use. The 7k100 is faster than both the 7k60 and the 5k120 and the speed difference will be noticeable in day to day use. Neither new drive should be noticeably louder than the 7k60 or run much hotter.

Someone on the thinkpads mailing list posted that he noticed virtually no difference in normal day to day use between the Samsung 120gb 5400 and the Hitachi 60gb 7200 except that the Samsung was much quieter. He said the Hitachi benchmarked about 10% faster on read speed and random seek.

richarddd wrote:

brentpresley wrote:Listen, I've USED about all of these drives. Heck, I see/install more drives in a week than most people here will see in a lifetime. If you don't want to believe me, fine.

Trust but verify.

brentpresley wrote:care to share WHERE you got your numbers?

I got those numbers from www.zipzoomfly.com, but made sure they were consistent with other numbers. They are close to the numbers you post.

Would the following be accurate?: the 5k120 is a bit slower than the 7k60, but the speed difference would be hard to notice in day to day use. The 7k100 is faster than both the 7k60 and the 5k120 and the speed difference will be noticeable in day to day use. Neither new drive should be noticeably louder than the 7k60 or run much hotter.

Someone on the thinkpads mailing list posted that he noticed virtually no difference in normal day to day use between the Samsung 120gb 5400 and the Hitachi 60gb 7200 except that the Samsung was much quieter. He said the Hitachi benchmarked about 10% faster on read speed and random seek.

Both drives will run substantially cooler and quieter than the 7k60 b/c they have fluid dynamic bearings (7k60 did not).

If you have less than 1GB RAM, upgrade your RAM first. You will see more of a performance benefit (and it is cheaper). Above 1GB you will see a MARKED improvement in 1) boot time, 2) application load time by going from 5400 -> 7200RPM.

Also, I do NOT consider zipzoomfly (or ANY other retailer) a reputable source for benchmarks. Find a site that has run HDTach on the drives you are interested in.

You will see that ALL 7200RPM drives have substantially faster INNER zone transfer rates than any 5400RPM drive. This is EXTREMELY important because you will not get the maximum listed transfer rate out of EITHER drive for 99% of the data you move. Only those few MB of data stored on the outer most tracks will see the full transfer rate.

Also, the seek time on the 7k60 is 10% faster (10ms vs 11). This will not help you either.

It is your money and purchase, but as a power user that does a LOT of stuff that requires disk access, this is the FIRST upgrade that I do on ALL my personal systems.

HECK, I'm sure I'll be a first adopter of solid-state drives when they can be bought simply because there is no such thing as TOO FAST.

oh... so sorry i don't agree with you.

brentpresley wrote:

abendx wrote:wow.... what a difference.... i just upgraded my 5400 to a 7200 (100GB Hitachi).... and....

IT IS FRICKEN LOUD!!!!!!

worse... is that the difference in speed is minimal if any at all!

i could not have spent my money any more foolishly!

stay away from this upgrade... it is not worth your cash!

Stay away from this USER.

He's not worth the brain cells.

brentpresley wrote: And the 7k100 is king. Nothing touches it.

Is there a correlation between capacity and performance?

laundromatt wrote:Is there a correlation between capacity and performance?

All else being equal, higher capacity means higher density means the heads don't have to move as far means higher performance.

richarddd wrote:

laundromatt wrote:Is there a correlation between capacity and performance?

All else being equal, higher capacity means higher density means the heads don't have to move as far means higher performance.

Not really. Given how disk space is allocated, the distance for any seek (ie non-sequential access) is basically going to be a random distance from the inner edge to the outer edge, regardless of the capacity.

With higher densite you're just skipping over more data.

tomh009 wrote:

richarddd wrote:All else being equal, higher capacity means higher density means the heads don't have to move as far means higher performance.

Not really. Given how disk space is allocated, the distance for any seek (ie non-sequential access) is basically going to be a random distance from the inner edge to the outer edge, regardless of the capacity.

With higher densite you're just skipping over more data.

Actually, richarddd is right and you are wrong.

As platter density increases so does data transfer rate. This is completely independent of seek time.

When reading, more data is moving under the read/write head in the same amount of time with higher density platters.

One thing tom009 did reference was non sequential access though.

Random access actually times the seek along with the time it takes to access non-sequential data. Random access time takes rotation latency into account and is a much more useful indicator of overall drive response. Recorded in average milliseconds, a lower score is better.

Kyocera wrote:One thing tom009 did reference was non sequential access though.

Right. And if the heads are moving (referring to the post I replied to ...) then you are seeking, and thus doing non-sequential (random) i/o.

tomh009 wrote:

Kyocera wrote:One thing tom009 did reference was non sequential access though.

Right. And if the heads are moving (referring to the post I replied to ...) then you are seeking, and thus doing non-sequential (random) i/o.

You still have to READ the data that you seek too, and that does NOT take zero time.

Assuming EQUAL buffer size, equal rotational speed, and equal seek times, a drive with higher platter density is going to move it off/on the disk faster.

No matter HOW bad the fragmentation is.

ALL ELSE equal, drives with HIGHER density platters move data FASTER. PERIOD.


EDIT - he CLEARLY said all else being EQUAL. That assumes seek times as well.

I agree -- higher platter densities give you higher (sequential read) data rates off the media. Higher rotational speed gives you an increase in data rates as well.

What they don't give you, though, is any improvement in seek times, all other things being equal: that is purely a function of the head mechanism and the diameter of the disk platter. Of course, higher-speed disks tend to have faster head mechanisms as well, but it's an independent question, really ...

brentpresley wrote:ALL ELSE equal, drives with HIGHER density platters move data FASTER. PERIOD.

Okay, let's compare a 100GB 5400rpm drive to a 160GB 5400rpm drive, with everything else being equal. Is the 160GB drive 1.6 times the speed of the 100GB drive?

brentpresley wrote:EDIT - he CLEARLY said all else being EQUAL. That assumes seek times as well.

Actually, what he said was "All else being equal, higher capacity means higher density means the heads don't have to move as far ...".

The average seek distance (seeking is what disk head movement is all about) is a function of the platter size (1.8", 2.5", 3.5" etc), so the platter density doesn't come into play there.

pianowizard wrote:

brentpresley wrote:ALL ELSE equal, drives with HIGHER density platters move data FASTER. PERIOD.

Okay, let's compare a 100GB 5400rpm drive to a 160GB 5400rpm drive, with everything else being equal. Is the 160GB drive 1.6 times the speed of the 100GB drive?

In short, no. First, ignoring that in the same series, the two drives would probably have a different number of platters (a 160GB 5K160 has two platters, while the 80GB version has just one).

The 160GB 5K160 has a maximum aerial density of 131 GB/sq.in. The 100GB 5K100 has a maximum density of 86 GB/sq.in. As a result, their "density ratio" is about 1.5:1 -- but the media data rates ate 540 Mb/s and 490 Mb/s for a ratio of only 1.1:1.

You now have to remember that there are more tracks and more bytes per track. So the number of bytes per track increases by less than the 1.5:1 ratio, but my math skills are too rusty to figure out by exactly how much. Maybe 1.1:1?

pianowizard wrote:

brentpresley wrote:ALL ELSE equal, drives with HIGHER density platters move data FASTER. PERIOD.

Okay, let's compare a 100GB 5400rpm drive to a 160GB 5400rpm drive, with everything else being equal. Is the 160GB drive 1.6 times the speed of the 100GB drive?

It is faster, but not 1.6X because you lose speed to overhead in the sectors, etc.

Differences in platter density are the reason the Hitachi 7k100 is slight faster than the Seagate Momentus 7200.1

The Hitachi features 50GB platters while the Seagate is a 40GB/platter design (and actually runs 3 full platters in the 100GB flagship version with 1/2 of a platter made inaccessible by the firmware). All else in these two drives is effectively equal (cache size, rotational speed).

http://www.storagereview.com/articles/2 ... ook_2.html

I just received my new T60P with a 60gb 7,200rpm drive and my system is as quiet as any I've owned. I've put 7,200rpm drives in all my previous laptops (Ibm R40 and Sony Vaio FX) without any issues with noise. You will however notice the faster response time.

Tim

Hi,

To answer the questions regarding a 7200 drive, battery life, noise, performance, I'll share my experience. I have a Thinkpad T60p and interchange 5400 and 7200 drives alot. I would not be concerned about heat, power, or battery consumption. None have been even remotely problematic (and I am a serious power user).

I never noticed a difference at all with noise either. I simply could not tell the difference.

Regarding performance, it is defineatly a noticeable improvement. If you use VMWare on the box to load multiple OSs without a doubt, get the 7200 drive(s)

Regarding buying them, I wouldn't buy the drives from Lenovo. I was able to search newegg, tiger, and mwave, and I got 3 7200 drives for around $450.00. You'll save a lot on the drives if you dont buy them from Lenovo.

I hope this helps.
T Schenkman